Glen -
Yes, my problem with both consensus and convergence is the downward
causation, or more specifically, the extent to which that forcing
structure can or cannot be escaped.
With relatively independent things like zero-intelligence agents, this
isn't as much a problem (I think) because the resistance to flip from
one behavior (consensus participation, exploitation) to another behavior
(exploration) should (ideally) be low, or at least bounded.
But with intelligent agents (like humans), any behavior that obtains can
be positively reinforced to a huge degree, perhaps infinitely. The
little, programmable homunculus in side your head becomes specialized
and stuck in its ways. That makes the "escape velocity" from a
consensus much more difficult.
I see a distinction (now) between whether your offense at convergence is
a social/political/spiritual one or a technical one. I think I hear you
saying that in fact, consensus and convergence *are* real phenomena in
human understanding but that you *do* think they are not good for the
individual or the group (unless it is the Borg as you reference later?)
I've been heard using the term Homo Hiveus to describe one end-state
that humans may (socially) evolve to... I'm not convinced it is
necessary or even possible... but I *do* feel it would be a tragic loss
if humanity becomes one big lock-step colony (or set of
competing/mutually-ignoring? colonies). I think we have a
counter-example to this in societies such as the Japanese who (from my
Western/American perspective) seem to be a lot more predisposed
(culturally?) to give over to collective behaviour. The fascists of
early last century seemed prone to this (in a top-down way?), and to
some extent the collectivists (socialism, communism), and for the most
part all of those have (mostly) failed to capture the hearts and minds
of the members of the collective.
Extremist fanatics might be the closest to this? Individuals being
"captured" by a small set of very powerful and shared memes? Moonies,
Muslim Bro'hood(???), Taliban(???), Aryan Nation, Extreme Right Christians.
That's also part of my suspicion of thought and preference for action.
And how do you feel about thoughful action and actionable though <grin>?
A simple summary might just be an explanation of how you think this
aphorism has "done more harm..." ? I'm sure it *has* done harm, but
I'm not sure what it is you refer to?
When I hear "all models are wrong, some are useful", I hear "therefore,
we need to keep modeling to make better models". And that's the
problem. I have the same problem with people who think there is only 1
best way to _think_.
And I hear... "the map is not the territory", if you really want to see
what is in that area labeled "there be dragons here", you need to go
visit, and don't expect to come home having bagged a dragon, but you
might get eaten!
Although I sound cynical when I use the aphorism "the problem with
communication is the illusion that it exists", I'm not being cynical at
all. It's actually a positive statement that argues _for_ variety and
diversity in thought ... against consensus, pro exploration.
I think aphorisms are at their best when they are offering cynicism or
polyannaism... in the latter I think we call them platitudes?
To me, this is why the "Borg" is such a great enemy. To discover I think
(nearly) exactly like another person would be the best argument for
suicide I've ever heard. To discover the fantastic ways in which others
do not think like me borders on the very purpose of life.
I agree perfectly (now go ride off a cliff!) <smirk>
Further, I don't think evolution would work without this balance between
the extent to which internal models mismatch reality vs. the extent to
which they match reality. I.e. to be wrong is beautiful and
interesting. To be right is useless and boring.
That explains a lot about my severe depression and feelings of uselessness!
Therefore, phrases like "all models are wrong, some are useful" is a
kind of crypto-idealism. A sneaky way to get us to converge and,
thereafter, be entrapped by the convergence. Even if the limit point
doesn't exist in itself, such crypto-idealism can trap us in an
ever-shrinking _cone_ of constraints.
I like your term - Crypto Idealism... now, have you ever considered that
you might be paranoid? <grin>
That's close, but not quite what I intended. I read your example as
"automatic modeling", which is awesome and I'm sad that it faded away.
Or more to the point, "automated model exploration"? I'm still
interested in re-igniting it if ever i find the right
project/collaborators. My part was more on the analytics side of
trying to understand the *results* of these ensemble runs... high
dimensional correlation over a (sometimes rough) multidimensional
landscape. But I also understand the ABM, GA and "design of
experiments" aspects well enough to participate or lead others with
fresh skills.
But model forking, to me, means the responsibility (along with all 4
causes, efficient, material, formal, and final) may change with the
changing of hands. The two extremes are _abuse_, where the model is
being used for its side effects or purposes for which it was never
intended to an _attempt_ to carry on an effort set out by the original
modeler. There's a whole spectrum in between.
Aha! Thanks for the disambiguation. I don't think we are converging,
as that would be useless and boring. We are only converging enough that
I can agree that "communication is an illusion"!
The main difference I see between what I'm trying/failing to describe
and automatic modeling lies in the [im|ex]plicit nature of the objective
function(s) and the evolution of that(those) objective function(s), if
they evolve at all.
I'm also implying a full spectrum of asynchrony between forks, in time,
space, purpose, use cases, etc.
Ah yes... in fact, the "automated modeling" project was a vague attempt
to rein in and exploit what already happened. Build an effective (for
some purposes) model and others with co-opt it and use it (modified or
not) for (more or less) different things to (more or less) effect. The
results will probably never be collectively compiled, and if they are,
the biggest thing likely to be discovered is big holes in it's
use/application.
I'd like to catch up on your definitions here (in this thread or our
offline parallel one)... maybe others are curious as well by what you
mean by multi-formalism and these evolving models (My example with
GA-designed ensembles of meta-model parameters might be the same thing
roughly?).
I basically mean the use of different mechanisms for the internals and
interactions of the various elements involved. The most
straightforward, practical example are hybrid systems, where a discrete
module must interact with a continuous module.
In my experience, this is usually limited to using one as a forcing
function to the other, with the "other" being the dominant one? Fine
grain discrete informing a lower resolution continuous? I'm not current
in the field.
But there are plenty of
others practical examples, as well as metaphysical ones: How do you get
an atheistic Hindu and a young earth Creationist to cooperate toward an
objective?
This sounds like a Sphinx - worthy riddle or the setup for a Steven
Wright joke!
You lucky boy, to live within a drive or rail to Powells on demand. My
wife and I spend up to half our time there it seems when we visit the
area. The independents are going slowly but surely. Powells is a
bastion.
Yeah, Amazon's prices are always lower. But I pay a little extra if I
meet employees or owners face to face.
I don't go to bookstores to buy books, I go there to browse them in the
context of other booklovers. I *buy* books at bookstores to make sure
they are there the next time I want to go browse (or people watch).
Powells is by far my favorite since Cody's closed. Denver's Tattered
Cover (downtown) is worthy as well and I'm sad that ABQs Bound to be
Read failed. Borders and their ilk managed to capture the superficial
feel of the best Indies, but it is like going to Chipotle's expecting to
have a Tomasita's (only for SFe residents and visitors) experience.
- Steve
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
